Cronin v Green and Carter

Case [2015] WASC 377

CRONIN -v- GREEN & CARTER [2015] WASC 377



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2015] WASC 377
Case No:CIV:1207/2013ON THE PAPERS
Coram:PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR GETHING14/10/15
15Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Costs orders made
B
PDF Version
Parties:SUSAN ELIZABETH CRONIN
JUDITH BETTY GREEN & MARY LYNETTE CARTER as Executors of the Estate of MARY ELLEN NANCARROW
JUDITH BETTY GREEN
BRIAN HERBERT NANCARROW
MARY LYNETTE CARTER
SHARON VALLELONGA
HELEN MARGARET ROZEMA
ROBERT JAMES NANCARROW

Catchwords:
Family Provision Act 1972 (WA)
Discontinuance of proceedings
Costs

Legislation:
Family Provision Act 1972 (WA), s 14(6)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 23 r 2

Case References:
Clark v Richards [2003] WASC 5
Daniels v Hall [No 2] [2014] WASC 272
Dean v Collins [No 2] [2015] WASCA 151
Del Borrello v Friedman & Lurie (A firm) [No 3] [2014] WASC 204
Judith Betty Green and Mary Lynette Carter In Their Capacities as Joint Executors of the Estate of the late Mary Ellen Nancarrow v Nancarrow [2015] WASC 18
Kevin Ernest Judge As Liquidator of Citystyle Enterprises Pty Ltd v Trifield Corporation Pty Ltd [2011] WASC 122
National Australia Bank Ltd v Joyce [No 2] [2013] WASC 274
O'Neill v Mann [2000] FCA 1680
Pacella v Sherborne [2009] WASC 58
Pacella v Sherborne [No 2] [2010] WASC 186
Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Ex parte Lai Qin [1997] HCA 6; (1997) 186 CLR 622
Southern Cross Pipelines Australia Pty Ltd v Kenneth Comninos Michael Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator [2002] WASC 316
Vigolo v Bostin [2005] HCA 11; (2005) 221 CLR 191

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CHAMBERS
CITATION : CRONIN -v- GREEN & CARTER [2015] WASC 377 CORAM : PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR GETHING HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 14 OCTOBER 2015 FILE NO/S : CIV 1207 of 2013 MATTER : Family Provision Act 1972 (WA)

    The Will of Mary Ellen Nancarrow, late of Bedingfield Lodge, 4 Bedingfield Road, Pinjarra in the State of Western Australia, deceased
BETWEEN : SUSAN ELIZABETH CRONIN
    Plaintiff

    AND

    JUDITH BETTY GREEN & MARY LYNETTE CARTER as Executors of the Estate of MARY ELLEN NANCARROW
    First Defendants

    JUDITH BETTY GREEN
    Second Defendant

    BRIAN HERBERT NANCARROW
    Third Defendant

    MARY LYNETTE CARTER
    Fourth Defendant

    SHARON VALLELONGA
    Fifth Defendant

    HELEN MARGARET ROZEMA
    Sixth Defendant

    ROBERT JAMES NANCARROW
    Seventh Defendant

Catchwords:

Family Provision Act 1972 (WA)- Discontinuance of proceedings - Costs

Legislation:

Family Provision Act 1972 (WA), s 14(6)


Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 23 r 2

Result:

Costs orders made


Category: B


Representation:

Counsel:


    Plaintiff : No attendance
    First Defendants : No attendance
    Second Defendant : No attendance
    Third Defendant : No attendance
    Fourth Defendant : No attendance
    Fifth Defendant : No attendance
    Sixth Defendant : No attendance
    Seventh Defendant : No attendance

Solicitors:

    Plaintiff : AVA Legal
    First Defendants : De Vita Legal
    Second Defendant : Arns & Associates
    Third Defendant : In…

Continue reading Cronin v Green and Carter

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Cronin v Green and Carter [2015] WASC 377
Case
[2015] WASC 377
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cronin v Green and Carter, heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, involved a dispute arising from the application of the Family Provision Act 1972 (WA). The central issue was whether the applicant, Cronin, was entitled to financial provision from the estate of her deceased father. The respondents, Green and Carter, were the executors of the deceased's estate. The proceedings were eventually discontinued, and the court was required to determine the appropriate costs order.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate allocation of costs in light of the discontinuance of proceedings. The court needed to balance the factors pertinent to the decision, including the reasons for the discontinuance, the conduct of the parties, and the stage of the proceedings at which the discontinuance occurred. The court also had to consider whether any of the statutory provisions or common law principles applied to guide the decision on costs.

The court found that the applicant's decision to discontinue the proceedings was not due to any fault of the respondents, but rather because of a change in the applicant's circumstances. The judge acknowledged the lack of fault on the part of the respondents and the fact that the proceedings had advanced to a stage where significant judicial resources had been expended. In light of these considerations, the court determined that it was appropriate to make a costs order in favour of the respondents. The court also took into account the need to protect the integrity of the judicial process and to deter frivolous or vexatious litigation.

The final orders of the court included the discontinuance of the proceedings and the allocation of costs to the respondents. The judge emphasised the importance of considering all relevant factors in making a costs order, particularly in cases where proceedings are discontinued. The court's decision reflected a careful balance between the interests of the parties and the need to maintain the efficiency and fairness of the judicial system.

Orders

Orders of the court

Costs orders made

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.